Travel or Out

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Handler taps the disc into play, with pivot foot right beside the boundary. When they rotate to throw a backhand they 1) step out of bounds, and 2) lift their pivot foot.

Is it the TRAVEL or the OUT call that takes precedent?

Thx,
M

This actually came up recently on the SRC newsgroup.

IX.C.2) A pivoting thrower may contact an out-of-bounds area, provided that part of the pivot
remains in contact with the playing field.

This states that a thrower cannot become out of bounds, so long as they have an IB pivot. What
the wording doesn't clarify is what happens when the pivot becomes OB due to travel.

The consensus is that throwers cannot become OB or cause the disc to become OB through their
pivoting/throwing. There's already some (highly speculative) support for that conclusion in the
rules, but it's likely going to be clarified at some point in the future.

I'm familiar with the discussion too.

Based on argumentum ex silencio, the rules seem to technically imply that the thrower becomes OB, causing a turnover. As Temple says, there is a consensus that this is not the intended spirit of the rules. On the whole, we would much rather you call a travel violation and allow the thrower to reset a legal pivot instead.

"On the whole, we would much rather you call a travel violation and allow the thrower to
reset a legal pivot instead."

I don't think it's a question of preference. Calling OB in this case, based on a loophole, would
be wrong.

The rules technically only have this loophole when *both* of the following conditions are met
(see IX.C.1):

1. The previous throw was not completed (new Offense).
2. No part of the thrower's pivot is touching IB.

You really have to put your pedantic goggles on to find the bounds of the loophole, but they
exist.

It's important to note that the rules don't exist in isolation on the printed sheet. The accepted
interpretation of the rule matters just as much.

Calling OB above would be as wrong as hacking the part of somebody's arm that is above you
away from the disc, and then calling foul on your opponent.

hm, clear as mud...

so, do I call travel or out?

I didn't clearly describe it in my original post, but the situation was new offense (disc was just tapped inbounds), and the inbounds pivot foot lifted up completely.

I'm thinking that your discussion thus far is leaning towards TRAVEL.

PS: what is the SRC newsgroup?

YourMom,

Just call a travel for your situation. It's the largely accepted and recommended course of action.

There is a loophole that would allow one to argue that the player is OB and the disc should be turned over. While Temple and I disagree on whether it is fundamentally wrong to exploit this loophole, we both (and more importantly, the SRC) agree that you should not exploit this loophole. That is, you should treat it as an ordinary travel violation until the rules are clarified to close the loophole.

I have furnished a link to the rules newsgroup with this post. The SRC members frequently discuss difficult questions and interpretations there.

"While Temple and I disagree on whether it is fundamentally wrong to exploit this loophole,
we both (and more importantly, the SRC) agree that you should not exploit this loophole."

Got a question for you atanarjuat...

I referenced one earlier, but here's a detailed description of two not-uncommon scenarios:

Scenario 1: You and I jump up for a high disc, I'm closer but you jump higher and reach over
me for the disc. You don't touch me or prevent me from bidding for the disc. I smack your
hand just before you are about to catch the disc. If your hand wasn't there I may have been
able to catch the disc. I call Foul on you.

Do you think it's fundamentally wrong for me to call foul on you?

Scenario 2: You're marking me. You've set up in such a way that you aren't a disc space
away. The count hits Stall 8, I call Disc Space and immediately rake the disc up your chest. I
then call Foul.

What about this scenario, is it fundamentally wrong for me to call foul here?

The rules support me calling foul in both of these situations. They're fairly common scenarios,
and I certainly think me calling foul is fundamentally wrong in both cases.

Never mind trying to explain it by reference to potentially comparable situations, All you need to do is read the discussion that atanarjuat linked to, in which a member of the SRC (the standing rules committee - the people who write and modify the rules) explicitly says that the loophole is unintentional. Exploiting this loophole without that knowledge would be clever and very perceptive. Exploiting it knowing that it should not exist and that the SRC will eliminate it would be wrong. To quote one of the authors: "But this was not intended, anyone exploiting this loop hole after it was explained to them should look for a different sport. "

Well, reading the opinion of others is one thing, but I was just trying to make it clear through
example that there are times where literal interpretation and application of the rules certainly is
fundamentally wrong.

Antanarjuat is a great player with a strong sense of Spirit and fair play as well as knowledge of
the rules. But he's missed the mark a bit in this area. Perhaps through those scenarios, he'll
realize and believe it to be the case.

Travel would be the correct call.

Regardless of the current wording (which will be considered for edit/adjustment), just as the disc can only be advanced by passes, the disc only becomes out of bounds during passes. A thrower drifting OB while in possession should not cause the disc to become OB resulting in a turnover. That will always be a result of a misplacement of the pivot, which is a travel.

"Do you think it's fundamentally wrong for me to call foul on you?"

Honestly, and with all due respect, I don't think there's much point to discussing these. I think a loophole is a loophole, which happens to be problematic when everyone on the field is a referee. I feel I can't tell the referee strictly what to call in a case like this -- only what I think he should call, and what his peers would call. But, hey, if you want to take a stricter stance, don't let my hesitation stop you.

We're really just differing in opinion on whether the subject is technically incorrect or morally incorrect. I think this is a such a trivial difference in stance between us that it's silly to keep talking about it at the expense of readers whom we'll only confuse with our semantics.

"We're really just differing in opinion on whether the subject is technically incorrect or morally
incorrect. I think this is a such a trivial difference in stance between us that it's silly to keep
talking about it at the expense of readers whom we'll only confuse with our semantics."

I think we agree that these loopholes should not be called. If you want to say that doesn't make
it wrong, ok, but I think that is what's going to confuse readers, not to mention encourage the
exploitation (hey, it's not "wrong", so it's ok).

I think the vast majority of ultimate players, including those that make up the rules governing
body would agree that it's wrong to exploit these loopholes. People should focus on that point.

Back to exploiting the rules, and YM, about your point, I agree with the travel call. I don't support calling "Out" because that's not the intent of the rule. And we all know that the rules are supposed to enact (or recreate) what would have happened if the foul/violation not been required.

In no way is a player who has established in-bounds possession of the disc, and who retains possession of the disc, meant 'by rule' to lose possession based on where he steps. That is not the intent of this rule.

The supposed advantage of a travel, and the reason it is called, is because the thrower is gaining unfair advantage on the marker. A travel is meant to be called in this case (as the thrower has stepped away), and the play is re-done with the thrower no longer gaining that advantage.

Nothing in this scenario screams "turn-over".